Faculty Senate Minutes; April 1999

Log on

DRAFT MINUTES

Seventh Meeting Academic Year 1998-1999 of the Faculty Senate
of Villanova University in The Cinema, Connelly Center,
Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at 4:00 PM.

PRESENT: Professors William J. Barnhurst; Victor Brooks; John D. Caputo; Walter E. Conn; Linda Copel; Rick Eckstein, Vice-Chair; Trudi Graves; Lowell Gustafson, Chair; Karyn Hollis; Michael Hones; Edward Kresch; Michael L. Levitan, Executive Secretary; Howard Lurie; Harry Strack; Robert Styer; Joyce Willens.

AGENDA:

1. Approval of Minutes

The Minutes of the March Meeting were approved as read.

2. Announcements and Correspondence

Professor Lowell Gustafson noted that there were a number of complaints concerning VOICE, the student evaluations. A number of faculty have complained that some students who are administering the surveys have not been following the SGA's own guidelines. Instead, some have interrupted classes without the permission of the professor. The person listed on the last VOICE as the faculty advisor is not on the faculty. All original student survey responses should be available to professors. The number of responses from each course should be listed in VOICE.

Some have asked how the ten to fifteen thousand dollars that the first VOICE cost has been financed. Did it come out of the regular SGA budget? If so, what previous programs had to be reduced or eliminated? If not, who is contributing the new funds? Other faculty have rejected that VOICE should be published at all. A communication will be sent to Fr. Stack regarding this.

Professor Levitan noted that the average dues-paying faculty member sent in approximately five dollars.

3. Proposal for the Periodic Evaluation of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs

FS 9899-7-1: RESOLVED

The V.P.A.A. Evaluation Committee should consist of
ten members: one Dean; one Chairperson or Program Director
from Nursing; one tenured faculty member from each of the
following areas: Arts, Science, Commerce and Finance,
Engineering, Nursing; one faculty member elected at-large;
one representative from Falvey Memorial Library; and one
representative from Enrollment Management.
The election of eight members to this committee shall
proceed as follows:
1) the Dean: by the Deans of each of the four colleges
2) the Chairperson or Program Director from Nursing:
by the Chairpersons and Program Directors from Nursing
3) the Arts representative: by the faculty from Arts
4) the Science representative: by the faculty from Science
5) the Commerce and Finance representative: by the faculty
of Commerce and Finance
6) the Engineering representative: by the faculty from
Engineering
7) the Nursing representative: by the faculty from Nursing
8) the at-large faculty member: by full-time and part-time
faculty.
The selection of the remaining two members of this committee
shall proceed as follows:
9) One representative from Falvey Memorial Library, on the
recommendation by the University Librarian
10) One representative from Enrollment Management, on the
recommendation of the Dean of Enrollment Management.

The electorate must satisfy the following conditions:
full-time and part-time faculty are eligible to vote if
they have been at Villanova at least two consecutive years.
Therefore, full-time faculty with at least two consecutive
years of service may cast two ballots: for their area
representative and for the at-large representative. Part-time
faculty with at least two consecutive years of service may
cast their ballot for the at-large representative.
The process for evaluation of the V.P.A.A. should, in
addition to other mechanisms, include a process similar
to the CATS evaluation of teaching. That is, an evaluation
form should be developed that asks questions about the
performance of the V.P.A.A. All faculty then have
the opportunity to complete the evaluation form
anonymously. The V.P.A.A. Evaluation Committee would collect
and summarize the results of these evaluation forms. The
evaluations would be summarized and reviewed, and
subsequently incorporated into a report along with other
pertinent material. This report would then be presented to
the V.P.A.A. and to the President.

The motion passed with none opposed, one abstained.

4. Response to the Report of the Joint Executive Committee Working Group for Review of the Villanova University Senate

Professor Harry Strack wrote, "The New Governance Plan,
A Guide For The Faculty." In it, he gave his perspective
of the pros and cons of the proposed changes concerning
governance as presented by the Rules & Review
Committee Working Group. He felt that probably the most
positive aspect of this report was overcoming the problem
of the dispersion of faculty political power. However,
he believes that there are other parts of it that are
"fatally flawed." For example, "Who controls the setting
of Academic Policy at this University?" Should students
have an equal right to set that policy? Furthermore,
Professor Strack believes that there must be a strengthening
of the "direct line" bypassing the University Senate to the
V.P.A.A. and then to the President. He believes that there
is no statement defining the type of issues that can follow
this path. The Committees so established make the "initial"
determination of what "line" to follow. Why is the word
"initial" present? Who determines if that determination is
appropriate? Thus the problem with this report, in Professor
Strack's opinion, is that it has to do with interpretations of
words and who will make those interpretations.: There was additional discussion concerning the University
Budget Committee and the Administrative Planning Budget
Committee. The Faculty Senate concluded that the University Budget
Committee, a subcommittee of the University Senate, serves no
purpose since it merely rubber-stamps the budget it receives.
Therefore, the Faculty Senate believes it should be eliminated. On
the other hand, the Administrative Planning Budget Committee has
neither faculty nor student representatives. The Faculty Senate
believes that, following the philosophy of a tripartite system,
there should be faculty and student representatives on this
committee.: It was suggested that all faculty should examine the
report presented by the Rules and Review Committee and
give feedback to Dorothy Malloy, Vice President and
General Counsel, as to how to improve the presented changes
in governance. This report can be found at
http://dgprod2.vill.edu/~fsenweb/R&R.htm. To add
additional focus to the analysis of this report,
A Guide for the Faculty was prepared by Professor Harry
Strack, a copy of which can be found at the end of these minutes.
(The report is also found as a Word Perfect document here or as a Word Document here. The
advantage of this is that it contains font changes to
highlight important items, i.e., they may be underlined or in a
bold font. Click on it and then save it as a file, after which you can open it in your word procesor.)
Professor Gustafson said that the Faculty Senate should conduct
a referendum asking Villanova faculty if they would prefer the
status quo, the final version of the Rules & Review Committee's
governance proposal, or unionization.

5. Consideration of Faculty Unionization

After much discussion, the following motion was made:

FS 9899-7-2: RESOLVED

The Faculty Senate instructs the Senate Vice Chair to
form an ad hoc committee to explore the advantages
and disadvantages of faculty unionization. The committee
will prepare a report with possible recommendations for
the Faculty Senate's consideration in Fall, 1999.

The motion passed unanimously.

6. Discussion of VOICE, the Student Evaluations.

__________________________________________________

Professor John (Jack) Schrems, Director Arts Program,

gave the following presentation to the Faculty Senate:

The VOICE is just plain wrong.

Students may indeed talk in private about their courses
and teachers, but there is no need or justification to
sanction it with the aura of seeming scientific
appearance in a thick, printed document which is
distributed to all.
The survey is unscientific in its design, its
distribution, its execution. It is partial in its
coverage. It lacks respect, except for its own
arrogance. There is and can be no scientific
or logical basis for joining together the two
parts of the report, the summary data and the
commentary. Even CATS does not provide such
anonymous comments because they cannot be
justified.
I take my cap off to the students who initiated
this survey because they saw a vacuum in
leadership and rushed to fill it. That there has
been a lack of voices to speak for sound education
outside of the endless circle of strategic
planning is appalling. The higher levels of
administration are so preoccupied with plans,
reviews, monies, cutting benefits, and creating
labor disputes that they pay little notice to
vital issues of academic affairs.
This silence lends credence to the surmise that
they actively support the effort and indeed
have subsidized the VOICE effort perhaps because
the faculty opposed CATS on WEB.
VOICE reflects a one-dimensional view of
education with no acknowledgment that a
university is made of many different teachers and
teaching styles, that students are to exert
themselves for the purpose of learning and to
be subject to the evaluation of superb professors
(of 10, 20, 30, and 40 years), trained and
experienced in their respective fields. The watch
word for VOICE in both the commentary and the data
sections seems to be "tickle my ear or I am bored."
The report can in no way measure or show the
effort or lack of effort put into each course by
the students who all have an equal voice in the
survey. That equal voice is wrong and even more
wrong when the unequal and anonymous voice is
then redoubled in the commentary section.
In one respect, however, the report has been a
good thing in that it brings to stark focus the
very limitations of CATS. CATS, while not published
and absent a commentary section, nonetheless
reflects the one-dimensional philosophy of
education of VOICE. Through these instruments we
see John Dewey's permissiveness come full bloom
in our University.
What can be done? I believe we have to entertain
legal efforts, civil suits, injunctions. Clearly
defamation is involved in the very design and
distribution of VOICE. Remedy is imperative. In
addition to legal efforts we should consider
requesting Chairs to withhold names from Course
Master Schedules until the beginning of the
semester. Further we should consider withholding
CATS surveys from all except the students who
have no more than two absences in a semester.
Only those who have made a demonstrated effort
should be involved in such surveys if anyone
is to be involved.

It is time for the faculty to speak.

__________________________________________________

A very heated discussion ensued, especially concerning
the appropriate role of students at any university.
Are students to determine the curriculum with a voice
equal to that of the faculty? Has the Administration
not told the Villanova students that they are
unique and that they should have a voice equal to that
of the faculty? Furthermore, a number of questions were
raised concerning the funding of VOICE. It is anticipated
that a report will be presented at the next Faculty
Senate meeting in the fall with answers to these funding
questions.
Professor John Immerwahr, Associate to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs, responded to some of the points
raised by Professor Schrems. He stated, "The VOICE is not
subsidized by Academic Affairs." He further added that
apparently some people asked Dr. John Johannes, V.P.A.A.
about this. Professor Immerwahr recalled that Dr. Johannes
stated that he (Dr. Johannes) had nothing to do with
paying for it. Professor Immerwahr said that he didn't
"think anybody in Academic Affairs had any view one way or the
other about CATS on the web . . . ." Then Professor Immerwahr
said, "What I heard Jack [Johannes] say was, `I don't have a
dog in this fight.' So, I don't think there is any connection
between VOICE and anything in Academic Affairs." Professor
Immerwahr also mentioned that he was disturbed by the fact
that some students had not asked professors permission to
administer the survey, thereby creating an awkward situation
for the professors.
Professor Robert DeFina stated that the faculty is constantly told
that "students are our customers," and that he finds this to be a
noxious idea. He stated that as a Catholic university, as part of
the Catholic tradition of Catholic social teaching, we should be
trying to fight materialism, to try and find an alternative vision
of this world. However, here we are actually replicating within the
university that which we are supposedly trying to fight, namely,
that students are powerful because they have money.
Professor Rodger Van Allen concurred with Professor DeFina,
mentioning that at a V.Q.I. Central Committee meeting in 1997,
with most of the Deans and upper administration present, he
indicated clearly his feeling that many faculty found the "customer"
language inappropriate, especially since it is axiomatic in the
American consumer culture that "the customer is always right." He
further stated to the V.Q.I. group that professors had become
professionals in academe with the full intention of a service
relationship with students, and that they neither needed nor wanted
the materialistic "customer" language forced upon them. The notion
that somehow only with this "customer" nomenclature could faculty
understand a service role was particularly insulting.

The role of faculty was leadership in the academic mission and the
identity of Villanova and the service dimension emerged from within
this. He recalled that at that V.Q.I. meeting, Fr. Ed Hastings,
Director of Campus Ministry, agreed with his critique of the
"customer" language and said that Campus Ministry was also opposed
to it.

7. The Future of the Faculty Senate

Because of the uncertainty of the changes in governance,
Professor Lowell Gustafson, Chair, asked all members of
Faculty Senate to keep their present positions for the
fall semester. This way Faculty Senate can see what develops
regarding the proposed changes in governance.
There will be further discussion about the potential effects
of the suggested changes in governance on the existence of
the Faculty Senate.

8. Faculty Benefits

There was some discussion concerning modifications,
current and future, regarding medical and dental coverage,
tuition remission, etc.

The following motion was made:

FS 9899-7-3: RESOLVED

The Faculty Senate instructs the Faculty Senate Chair to
send a letter to Fr. Dobbin, President, thanking him for his
role in advocating the increase to 10% for retirement
benefits for faculty.

The motion passed unanimously.

Motion for adjournment was carried at 5:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael L. Levitan

Executive Secretary

THE NEW GOVERNANCE PLAN

A GUIDE FOR THE FACULTY

This report was prepared by Harry R. Strack, member of University

Senate Executive Committee and Joint Executive Committee/Rules &

Review Committee Working Group for Review of the Villanova University

Senate.

This guide should not be a substitute for a thorough reading of the

entire Governance Report.

This guide cannot assure absolute accuracy, as much will be determined

by how certain words and phrases in the Report are ultimately

interpreted and operationalized in a new University Senate

Constitution.

All page numbers refer to the Report of the "Working Group" dated

March 9, 1999, which presents the new governance plan.

I. GOALS

Positive

"It is recommended that faculty participation/representation in

University governance should be better defined and strengthened." (p.2)

Negative

"It is recommended that the tripartite structure of the University

Senate be affirmed and strengthened." (p.2)

"The proposed restructuring of the University Senate provides that all

three major constituencies will continue to be equally represented in

the full Senate, i.e., thirteen senators each from administration,

faculty, and students." (p.15)

Comment

The two goals conflict in the sense that faculty are regarded as being

no more important than students in governance. Indeed, with the other

constituencies considered, the faculty share of seats in the University

Senate is only about thirty (30) percent. No other major college or

university so denies the natural, intrinsic right of the faculty to

have a predominant role in the general governance of the institution

(subject, of course, to the ultimate authority of the Board of

Trustees) as does Villanova University. In fact, the Report boasts

about this uniqueness (see pp. 16-17, sect. iv. & v.). Note however,

that a careful reading of both sections, which describe the uniqueness,

consistency with the University Mission and Augustinian thought, and

the "benefits of experience" to students, reveals that the meaning and

intent of those sections would not change in any way if the word

"equal"

was eliminated from the first sentence of section (iv.).

II. DISPERSION OF FACULTY POLITICAL POWER

Positive

The Faculty Affairs Committee is renamed the Committee on Faculty and

merged with the Faculty Senate [Council] in a New Faculty Body (which

will choose its name when it is formed and operating). This Body will

administer the elections for faculty seats on the University Senate,

Academic Policy Committee, the Committee on Faculty, and, of course,

itself. The Committee on Faculty will also be considered a committee

of the University Senate and may meet separately from the New Faculty

Body. (see p.6)

The New Faculty Body can request the attendance of the faculty on the

Academic Policy Committee. A certain number of faculty on the New

Faculty Body (e.g., 5 of 14) must be University Senators. A certain

number of faculty on the Academic Policy Committee (e.g., 6 of 18) must

be University Senators. In short, all faculty members who are

University Senators (except for the Law School faculty senator) will

also serve on either the New Faculty Body or the Academic Policy

Committee.

The chair of the University Senate must be a faculty member.

Negative

No faculty member may serve on both the New Faculty Body and the

Academic Policy Committee.

The above described structure with its accompanying allocation of seats

may be difficult to operationalize; it may be hard to reconcile the

different criteria and also maintain appropriate representation of the

different colleges and units within colleges.

Comment

Assuming sufficient faculty display a commitment to actively serve in

some capacity in the new governance scheme and assuming the varying

criteria for service can be reconciled, this plan goes a long way in

solving the problem of the dispersion of faculty political power.

It is assumed that the New Faculty Body, although connected to the

University Senate through the Committee on Faculty, will also have an

independent existence and will create its own rules of operation and

organization (e.g., forming an executive committee, publishing a

newsletter, collecting dues, etc.).

The leader of this Body ought to be recognized by the Administration as

the leader of the faculty and as its spokesperson. This Body ought to

be treated with respect by the Administration and with that in mind,

the Administration ought to be responsive to all communications

directed to it by this Body as a matter of courtesy and collegiality

which are implied by the notion of shared governance. It is important

that the attributes of respect, responsiveness, courtesy and

collegiality be mutual.

Admittedly, these latter points are outside the charge and jurisdiction

of the Working Group which formulated the new governance plan and their

absence from the plan ought not to be taken as a criticism of the plan

itself.

III. FACULTY CONTROL OF ACADEMIC POLICY

Positive

The Academic Policy Committee will be reapportioned from the current 25

members of which 11 (a plurality) are faculty to 33 members of which 18

(a majority) are faculty. (see Figure 1 to the Report) [Note: while

the Report on page 6 states that two administrators will be added - the

Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Director of the

Library - Figure 1 to the Report also lists the Dean of Enrollment

Management as being an ex-officio member. The latter may be replacing

the Dean of the University College since this seat, while still listed

in the University Senate Constitution, no longer exists.]

". . . the significant faculty majority on the Academic Policy

Committee supports the symbolic and politically important nature of

faculty participation in formulation of academic policy that the

faculty rightly seeks." (p.15)

Negative

There is no reason to add two (or three) administrators. What can the

Associate VPAA contribute that the VPAA cannot? While the Director of

the Library and the Dean of Enrollment Management may have specialized

academic concerns, they can be invited to attend committee meetings

when those concerns are on the agenda. They certainly ought not to

have a vote on matters such as curriculum design, grading policy,

academic integrity questions, course-teacher evaluations, and other

such academic matters.

Comment

A committee of 30 consisting of 18 faculty, 6 administrators (the VPAA

and five academic deans), and 6 students (including one graduate

student) would be ideal. Such a committee, especially with its dual

lines of communication (see below), ought to engender widespread

faculty acceptance.

IV. FACULTY CONTROL OF RANK AND TENURE POLICY

Positive

The Rank and Tenure Committee is deleted as a University Senate

Committee. "Those matters within the special competence of the faculty

[e.g., rank and tenure policies . . . ] may be dealt with directly

without the need to bring them before the full Senate." (p.12) In

answer to a question at the University Senate meeting of March 19,

1999, the chair of the "Working Group", Vice President and General

Counsel, Dorothy Malloy, reaffirmed that rank and tenure policies will

not be dealt with by the University Senate under the new governance

plan.

Negative

There is no provision obliging the Rank and Tenure Committee to seek

broad faculty advice before it formulates new policies or changes

existing policies.

Comment

In the new University Senate Constitution, it ought to be stated as

part of the authority of the Committee on Faculty that it shall consult

with and advise the Rank and Tenure Committee on relevant policy

matters. With this provision, this matter ought to have strong faculty

support.

[Note: For precedence on the matter of the Constitution specifying a

tie between a Senate committee and an Administrative or non-Senate

committee, see pages 7,9,19 where a consultative relationship between

the University Administrative Planning and Budget Committee and the

Senate Budget Committee is specified.]

V. FACULTY INFLUENCE OVER THE UNIVERSITY BUDGET

Positive

"The University Administrative Planning and Budget Committee

("UPBC") . . .

has a new informational reporting relationship to the University Senate

and a stronger consultative relationship to the Senate Budget

Committee . . .

The Proposal [Plan] significantly increases the Senate's interaction

with the UPBC through more frequent reports to the full Senate and

greater consultative interaction with the Budget Committee earlier in

the annual budget process."

See page 19 for implementing language especially the phrase "maintain

continuous liaison."

Negative

The faculty have no seats on the UPBC and hold only 27% of the seats on

the Senate Budget Committee (3 of 11 seats).

Comment

If the faculty have any effective say at all in policy-formation, then

it also ought to have a say in the determination of corresponding

budgets, for it is obvious that the latter is needed for the

implementation of the former.

"The allocation of resources among competing demands is central in the

formal responsibility of the governing board, in the administrative

authority of the president, and in the educational function of the

faculty." (AAUP Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities)

VI. FACULTY COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Positive/Negative

excerpts:

(a) "In addition to the existing direct reporting line for University

Senate business to the Executive Committee of the Senate, both the

Faculty Assembly [New Faculty Body]/Committee on Faculty and the

Academic Policy Committee have an explicitly recognized direct line to

the Vice President for

Academic Affairs and, through the VPAA to the President (with an

informational reporting obligation to the Senate Executive Committee)

with respect to purely/primarily faculty matters." (p.6)

(b) "The initial determination as to whether a matter is

purely/primarily a faculty . . . matter rests within the discretion of

the respective Senate Committee. The Academic . . . Vice President and

the President, of course, retain their prerogative to seek full Senate

review of matters so directed to them through a request to the Senate

Executive Committee to add a matter to the Senate agenda for

discussion." (p.7)

all major areas of faculty concern significantly affecting the

University as a whole." (p.8)

(d) "In the event that a direct line committee appropriately using its

direct line within its purview receives a negative response from the

President, the committee may raise the matter with faculty . . .

representatives . . . of the appropriate committee of the University's

Board of Trustees with the request the matter be raised at a Board

committee meeting." (p.13)

Comment

This section is of vital importance to the faculty and is the

"trickiest" part of the entire governance plan. Does the new "direct

line" authority represent a change which is meaningful and substantive

or a change which is merely cosmetic and palliative? Much of the

problem here revolves around the meaning and interpretation of the

words in the above excerpts which are bolded and who exactly will make

those determinations.

1. Note that there is no direct, unfettered line to the President. The

VPAA acts as a conduit - which, in itself, is not objectionable. But

suppose the VPAA, perhaps believing an issue has no merit or that it

should be referred to the Senate, declines to present the matter to the

President. Does the committee have a right of appeal to the President

or any other recourse?

2. What is a "purely/primarily" faculty matter? The Report on page 12

offers some examples: rank and tenure policies and related matters of

faculty status such as appointments, reappointments, promotion and

dismissal. But these matters are not relevant here because they would

be automatically excluded due to the elimination of the Rank and Tenure

Committee from the University Senate. The Report continues: For the

Academic Policy Committee, ". . . as it deems appropriate and depending

on the weightiness and University-wide impact, could forward its

recommendations either to the full Senate . . . or, as to

purely/primarily faculty matters only, through the VPAA to the

President." Note the curious (and convoluted) wording

here - especially the words which have been bolded. For the Faculty

Assembly [New Faculty Body]/Committee on Faculty, the only example

offered is "all faculty welfare matters."

It is my judgment, from the perspective of having served for eleven

(11) years on the Faculty Affairs Committee and twenty (20) years on

the Academic Policy Committee, the majority of the issues considered by

those committees could be interpreted as not falling within the

"purely/primarily" classification and thus not be eligible for the

"direct line" communication route.

Course-teacher evaluations, academic integrity issues, grading policy,

curriculum design, timing for final exams and other such issues should

be primarily faculty concerns - otherwise, why bother constituting the

Academic Policy Committee with a faculty majority? If the students

felt adversely impacted by a committee decision on any of these issues,

they could dispute that the issue was one of "primarily faculty

concern" and urge the VPAA and/or President to refer the matter to the

University Senate where the faculty have only thirty percent (30%) of

the votes. This is a plausible scenario otherwise there would be no

need for the word "initial" in excerpt (b) above.

The dilemma is that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to list

in advance all matters which would qualify as "purely/primarily"

faculty matters, but if this is not done, then the determination, when

it is made, is likely to be based on political grounds. Also, if there

happens to be no significant student or administrative opposition to a

particular committee resolution, there would be no need for the faculty

to seek a direct line route because the resolution would likely pass in

the Senate anyway.

If one argues that, according to excerpt (b) above, the Senate could

only review the matter, and not vote, then the word "review" would have

to be modified by such a specification because the students could cite

excerpt (c) above and demand a vote, perhaps after introducing their

own resolution on the matter directly on the floor of the Senate under

"new business."

If excerpt (c) above is interpreted to mean that the Senate shall have

the authority to legislate as therein described only if the appropriate

committee is using their direct line to the Senate, then that clause

ought to be modified to make that explicit. Even on such obvious

faculty welfare issues as parking privileges or salary increments, the

students could claim to be significantly impacted with the same results

occurring as described above.

There needs to be further rewriting, reformulation, and refinement of

the proposed new governance plan regarding the "direct line" issue.

3. As for excerpt (d) above, note that faculty can obtain access to a

committee of the Board of Trustees, not the full Board, and then only

when using its direct line appropriately. Who decides what is

"appropriate"?

Note also that this is only formalizing the current situation. There

does not seem to be any restriction or limitation on raising issues

within Board committees by faculty members now serving on those

committees. One question which does arise here is: With which Board

committee would it be appropriate to raise questions of faculty

welfare?

Harry R. Strack

519-4733

April 5, 1999